Philipp Klaus Krause <p...@spth.de> wrote: > In the end, I wouldn't be surprised, if WG14 just goes with one of the > existing names, not caring about reserved identifiers.
There is only one existing name in common use. Even glibc chose to go with the name explicit_bzero. I notice you keep using the other names, wilfully ignoring the reality on the ground. > But introducing a new name, from the reserved identifiers, for > functionality, for which implementation experience already exists using > a non-reserved name, still looks like a legitimate appoach to me. Legitimate like pulling a sword from a rock.
